By David Harris, Huang Heng
It is an oft-used cliche to say a week is a long time in politics, but when it comes to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the phrase simply does the reality no justice whatsoever.
When one week draws to a close after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered his controversial foreign policy speech on Sunday, there was little agreement as to the success or otherwise of his address.
However, all analysts, who have had the interim to consider Netanyahu's words in greater detail, seem to concur that even though peace is as far away as ever, new peace process maybe is a different thing.
Old obstacles for peace
On the eve of the keynote speech given by Netanyahu on Sunday, the pundits were saying his words would offer little and most likely he would not try to push the envelope with revolutionary ideas, but rather stick to the tried and tested formula of blaming the Palestinians for all the troubles and saying Israel believes in peace.
In the event, many were surprised by Netanyahu's preparedness to talk of a "Palestinian state", even with pretty serious preconditions attached. Extreme right wings in Israel said he was pandering to US President Barack Obama and his Cairo speech on June 4. Those in the Arab world said his supposed peace overture was an insult.
The main sticking points following Netanyahu's speech and the Palestinian reaction remain as before: refugees, Jerusalem and the Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
There is concern amongst the peace brokers that Netanyahu's speech, especially his comments on the settlements which gave sufficient wiggle room for settlers to relax and to keep Netanyahu's hawkish coalition intact, may not take the peace process very far.
"There's an acknowledgment of where Washington is at, but I think what everybody wants to see is what's going to happen on the ground," one diplomatic source told Xinhua.
"He doesn't want to move but he wants to create an image of readiness," said Israel's former Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh.
"What's important for us, he made a precondition. What's important for the Palestinians, he wrote off at the outset," Sneh continued.
Meanwhile, many in Israel believe the Palestinians are not yet in a position to come to the negotiating table free from their own troubles at home.
"They're divided. As long as Hamas is in Gaza, can we really do a deal with them?" said Ephraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Saat Center for Strategic Studies, which hosted Netanyahu when he made his speech at Bar-Ilan University.
"If Obama really wants to sort this out, he's got to make sure there's no Hamas in Gaza."
In the months before Obama and Netanyahu came into office early this year, the two main Palestinian groups, Hamas and Fatah, were negotiating their own truce.
Hamas and Fatah differ on negotiations with Israel. The Fatah movement headed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, while cynical about Israel's seriousness, is generally prepared to enter talks with Jerusalem. Many in Hamas, on the other hand, still speak of the need to destroy Israel.
The reaction from Hamas to Netanyahu's remarks was derision. It was described as "odious screed" on a Hamas website by columnist Khalid Amayreh.
